User talk:Jz9 lin360/sandbox

Aanteneh (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Overall impressions: -Hits all necessary sections and a good layout of sections/subsections -Nice use of links! -Some sections are a bit brief and could use some expansion

Lead: -Includes bare minimum information (all the questions from grammar work #1 are answered) -Could add more information to go above and beyond what we did for the grammar work -Good start with all the essentials of the language, but some more information such as the history of the language, the people, the geography, and any other noteworthy facts about it will add to the page -May want to consider some sort of picture or diagram to depict the region it is spoken? -No obvious mistakes/inaccuracies

Phonology: -Includes bare minimum information (consonant chart, vowel chart, syllable structure, stress) -Consonant and vowel chart is nicely and clearly done, but information pertaining to them does not go above and beyond the practicum prep -Syllable structure and stress does a bit more than required, but could include more fleshing out if there are any more relevant details in your grammar -Within stress section: should mention tone, or lack thereof -May want to note voiced/voiceless placings on consonant chart -A few gaps that could be filled in the consonant and vowel subsections. Based on the alphabet, seems like there are some complexities of the grammar that could be elaborated on. I definitely could be wrong and you may have written everything relevant, but I feel like you can flesh these sections out more based on information provided in your grammar (e.g. long vowels? Special cases? Specific/weird examples?) -Examples of consonant clusters would be helpful to include -Organized logically and intuitively -Easy to comprehend and very clear -No obvious inaccuracies to note

Morphology: -Includes all information from practicum prep (affixation, morphological processes) -Nice note of how the language differs from others of its kind in the beginning of the section -Good start on expanding on the practicum with more details on types of affixes and well-chosen examples -Broadly, I have a good sense of the language's morphology -Narrowly, I think the layout of the examples you use could be improved by using the interlinear gloss rather than parenthesis. This will just make your examples clearer for people who aren't very familiar with how grammars are laid out; it was clear to me what "(e.g. mi-mik, POS-eye, "my eye")" was accomplishing, but splitting it into separate lines/using a chart may make it more accessible to others -Examples for reduplication and compounding are nicely done -Expanding on your examples for nominalization may make it more clear what the affixes are doing to the morpheme they are affixing. For instance, taking :-ke" and showing what a morpheme with and without it transforms to will provide a better picture for the reader of the function of the morpheme -No obvious inaccuracies -For the "additional notes" part of the nominalization section, you should add how the first two serve as derivational affixes (i.e., what part of speech do they derive the morpheme they are affixing?)

Syntax: -Covers bare minimum from the practicum prep (basic word order and headedness) -Goes beyond by including case agreement (nice!) -Broadly, I do have a good understanding of the language's syntax -Narrowly, expanding on the basic word order and different cases/adding more examples may be beneficial (unless your grammar is very strict in all cases, in which I think you should emphasize this). -Good use of examples for headedness. Are the four examples you included the only head-complement pairs used in the language? Or are those just some examples to emphasize that your language is primarily head-final, but has more pairings? This may be helpful to specify. -Great job on your case-and-agreement examples and explaining the subsection thoroughly -Wording is good -Flows logically and intuitively -No obvious inaccuracies

Draft as a whole: Great first draft! Reads logically throughout, and your use of subsections and their ordering is very effective. One note on this is that you may want to consider moving nominalization under your inflectional affixes section and renaming it derivational affixes and changing the content accordingly, followed by the two morphological processes. I think this would flow better and serve a clear distinction between derivation/inflectional and reduplication/compounding. However, this is definitely up to your discretion and how your grammar presents itself. I couldn't find any glaring examples of redundancies. All information appears to be in the appropriate section. Current information is well balanced, and examples are generally an appropriate amount; keep this up as you continue to add information for later drafts. I found your greatest strength to be your use of examples and how you presented them. Your tables are very nicely done, and you generally included examples exactly where they were necessary in clarifying the nuances of your language. This is especially evident in your syntax section and morphological processes. What you can work on is diving deeper into your grammar and expanding on your more bare sections, especially in your phonology section. Great start, and good luck with your second draft!

Peer review

Great job! It was very interesting and informative! :)

Below are my suggestions:

Introduction:

Great introduction. Maybe add more about what makes this language special, like some cool things that this language does that is unusual. Or, if that is not applicable, maybe add some facts about the culture or the history of the people who speak the langauge. Awesome little table in the corner- very informative and easy to understand.

Phonology

A key explaining what the diacritics mean. Explain what an obstruent means. Maybe a list of which consonants are allowed in onset and coda (unless they are all allowed).

Morphology

The tables are great, maybe add one for inflectional affixes. I would make sure to line up all examples so that the beginning of the word on one line lines up with the beginning of the word on the other line. For the most part, this is done. However, in the tables, it is a little bit cramped. I would also separate prefixes and suffixes and list each example in a table.

Syntax

Great! I love that you included links to other wiki pages. I would include a fuller introduction to this section just explaining a bit more about the syntax of the language as a whole. Giving an overview of each of the chapters in the syntax section of your grammar is a good way to summarize the main points.

Over all

Maybe include some definitions for all the linguistic vocab. It is nice that you link to the pages, but it would be quicker for the reader if you included an explanation. Also, flushing out an introduction for each section would make the page seem more full (i.e. giving an overview of each section). I would also suggest to present each example in the same way. In other words, if you are going to use tables for some examples, I would just use them for all examples.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paguiar1 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Paguiar1 (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)